So Sen. Barack Obama now wants to skip federal public financing for his campaign ("Obama skips public finance," June 20).
That's one of the main drawbacks to public financing: Candidates can just opt out rather than limit their spending.
Public financing cannot be made mandatory as that would be a de facto government-imposed spending limit. The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that such limits violate the Constitution's guarantee of free speech.
I think the questions we need to ask are: Why do politicians need such increasingly obscene amounts of money, and what do they spend it on?
The answer to both questions is television.
Modern campaigns are conducted almost entirely by increasingly expensive sound bites that contribute almost nothing to an understanding of a candidate's true stand on the issues. More often than not, they are merely misleading attacks on his or her opponents.
But the problem is not just what the candidates say but how much it costs to say it. The donors who pay for all those ads expect something in return and usually get it.
I believe the answer may lie in eliminating paid political advertising on television and radio. That is not to say that television and radio wouldn't continue to be an essential part of campaigning in the modern world. But broadcasting companies operate under a government-regulated license. As a condition of that license, they could certainly be required to provide a certain amount of free time to all recognized candidates.
The same Federal Election Commission that, under the current system, determines which presidential candidates qualify for government financing could, instead, determine who qualifies for free campaign time on television and radio.
In all probability, the stations and networks would provide the time in blocks rather than in the kinds of ubiquitous short advertising clips we see today. That would take less time away from the airtime available for commercial advertising and be easier to administer.
However, even if the time were made available in any way the candidate chooses, including multitudinous 30-second clips, the corrupting influence of big money would be severely curtailed.
Candidates no longer would be required to spend the majority of their time raising funds in order to keep pace with their opponents' advertising.
